QUOTE (bowiac @ Jun 14 2010, 11:50 PM)
index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024565
There should be a fascinating book coming forward eventually to explain how all this happened. Questions I'd like to see answered:
1. Why wasn't the Big 10 more involved with Texas & Company?
2. Why was this all moving so quickly seemingly? These are super complex decisions being made involving a ton of financials, and projected financials. Why did this all basically happen in a week?
3. Was the Pac 10 always planning on expanding into a 16 team conference, or did it get the idea from the Big 10?
4. Why was the Pac 10 expanding rather than the Big 12? Neither conference had their own TV network, and both made similar amounts of money last year. It's not like the Big 12 is the Big East here - why were they getting cannibalized here?
5. Did Colorado make the jump on the assumption that everyone else would be coming along soon? Did they get screwed here?
But really, the big question for me is speed. As someone not involved in this, I'm thrilled this all happened so fast, but it also seems pretty crazy. Nothing moves this fast. This went down with the speed of Lehman's bankruptcy, but without any discernable force causing the time pressure.
Sea Bass Neely got some of them but being from PAC-10 territory I can answer a few:
1.) The B10 wanted Texas, but had the "Tech Problem." Basically, UT would only come if its less desirable sibling(s) came along, and the B10 prides itself on having all of its schools at certain academic + research levels. UT would have fit right now. The rest? Not so much.
2.) Part of it was also the fact that Mizzou was also touted as being gone from the Big XII. Simply put, had one other team jumped ship last week, we'd be talking about the Pac-16 right now. Not that losing Nebraska and Colorado won't hurt in the long run (the #3 and #4 of the 12 teams that have any national appeal). And while the news was fast, a lot of people were discussing this behind closed doors months if not years ago. After all, talks of Texas wanting to go to the Pac-10 have been around since when the SWC dissolved.
3.) The Pac-10 wasn't going to go to 16 teams initially. In fact, the Pac-10 hasn't changed since 1978 when the Arizona schools were added. All the talk in the last few years centered around getting Colorado + Utah. The 16-team thing probably came around when the opportunity arose, but CU + UU were always on the radar, and it appears to have been their fall-back plan during this entire thing. Plus, it doesn't hurt getting access to two new media markets once negotiations for a new contract roll around in 2012.
4.) Simply put.... location, location, location. First part: The Big 12 happened to be located in no-man's land.
Texas and Texas A&M could all fit in with the SEC location wise. Nebraska and Mizzou with the Big 10. Colorado with the Pac-10 or MWC. It was inevitable that when other conferences looked to expand, the Big-12 happened to be in between every single one of them.
Second: the states that the Big 12 inhabit. The current Big 12-2 is obviously centered around Texas, with presences in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. The Pac-10+1/2 is obviously centered around with California, with schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and now Colorado and possibly Utah. Needless to say, it's a LOT easier for the conference that dominates Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, etc. to be the one with power in the relationship over the conference that has DFW/Houston.... and then things get quite a bit smaller afterwards.
Also imagine trying to convince people to join a conference to experience the road tripping from LA to Lubbock, TX :rolling:
Third part: just who would the Big 12 pull? The Big 10 schools are reaping the monetary and academic benefits of the Big 10, and aren't going to jump. Notre Dame hasn't blinked at all during this whole ordeal, and probably never would have unless a 16-team super conference was formed. SEC schools aren't about to jump either. Expanding into the MWC areas would just hurt the amount of revenue each school gets, etc.
Basically, the Big 12 was screwed, and IMO, the current new version won't last long either. Texas is just delaying the inevitable, and getting some extra money + their TV channel first.
5.) Colorado has long wanted to get into the Pac-10. Their campus culture / academics are more in line with Pac-10 schools. Also add on that the there are a lot of Pac-10 alums living in Colorado, and a lot of Colorado alums living in the other Pac-10 states, and it was bound to happen.
Either way though, I'd love to see a book on this matter... it's ridiculous how fast things have gone